Last time I watched Chomsky on a podcast the host asked him a viewer question like "What do you think about such & such a statement by Sam Harris about Islam." Chomsky's response was "I think he's a racist so his statements aren't worth discussing."
Benjamin Disraeli said more than 150 years ago "A man who is not a liberal at 16 has no heart; a man who is not a conservative at 60 has no head". Seems that Noam refuses to turn 60! It might take him a few more years... BTW, in my opinion, would Noam have been president, he would turn out more like Lenin or Fidel Castro. Luckily enough, he never sought political office so we are safe for now!
I just watched a video of Noam Chomsky from 2012 and ten years has aged him a lot more than I would have imagined but I think he just needs a haircut and a beard trim... but at age 92 not too bad, I guess he's still mentally as sharp as a pin.
I was on university only for short period of time and i didn't like that experience... but these guys are for me the great example of how honest, open discussions should look like... for me what they are doing it's a simple exposure of the style of thinking and I think they're teaching like that more then on some very detailed classes about some very specific subjects... stay critical and tuned to the truth and You'll be ok...
Krauss as an interviewer talks to much, so a discussion as a whole got kind of frantic and chaotic. The clue is hidden. Burning Chomsky's books? That was an interesting part, which wasn't put over the table
He doesn't talk too much, he just fails to get to the point, spends a lot of time searching for what he wants to say instead of saying it. He comes across as unprepared.
Giving a loaded gun to your worst enemy and hoping he only shoots your other more immediate enemy on the ground. That's the analogy here. How about we oppose both, and don't give either a loaded gun?
Seems like Krauss is trying to put words in Chomsky’s mouth or continually tweak his statements to get Chomsky to agree with him. Make your statement, ask your question and let Chomsky respond.
Please ask Chomsky about Rational Communism, or Rational Democracy. The Government as an Internet Forum for Policy Proposals. Anyone can post such proposals (if not already posted), anyone can add argument in favor/against them (if not already written), and we can have a transparent scoring system to figure out which Policy Proposal is the best and by exactly how many points. We can use the number of people advantaged by the policy, multiplied with the degree of advantage according to Maslow's pyramid of human needs, all minus the vice-versa - the negative score. Or any type of transparent system that's complex enough in order to be fair. Direct Democracy is easily manipulated by the rich who own the media, and Representative Democracy has the same problem but its worse because it lack transparency (you don't know what the party really will do, or you might vote a party for policy A, but you have to swallow policy B - that you;re against). Lets evolve! Leftism is the superior level of the brain, or the SuperEgo in psychology. While the lower part of the brain responsible with primitive sexual instincts is the base for right-wing. This leads to selfishnes, desire for competition, and competition leads to a pyramidal society with an alpha male on the top. (which is why religion has a male type of god, and why people have an universal submissive behavior in front of this type of god, which most animals do in front of the alpha male: bowing, crawling, kneeling, bringing offerings, etc.) Bees are Communists, because they never mate sexually, thus there's no competition, only collaboration. But our top brain level is even more communist than the bees, because it makes us identify with other people. Communism is specific to the rational, conscious part of the brain. That's why we need the voting to be done by this rational, conscious part of our brains. Workers, people in their majority are not leftists, their instinct is to elect an alpha type of leader, a pyramidal structure. If you truly are leftists, you should think of a rational, transparent system for the people to own and control the Government and every department.
What Krauss doesn't appear to understand when he says, 03:32 "It was able to bring the best young people from around the world to its educational systems. Many of whom came here and produced the wealth and quality of life we have as a nation", the "quality of life" of its people isn't the reason the plutocracy and their academic institutions attempt to import the best minds from around the planet. Apart from maintaining the status quo, the plutocrats and their academic institution have little interest in the "quality of life" of the majority of the population. The Princeton study clearly shows only the top fraction of a percent are considered in any government policy and the rest are left to fend for themselves in a corrupt system. Krauss is avoiding the reality that most of the best minds (e.g. Hand Bethe, Edward Teller, Leo Szilard, Enrico Fermi, Eugene Wigner . . . ) that "come to America" are used to advance US imperial hegemony. What motivation for the plutocrats do you think was behind Operation Paperclip? Operation Paperclip is a microcosm of the intent of US plutocrats to extract intellect and knowledge from around the planet to benefit their cause. These minds have been intentionally herded to give the plutocrats their empire that is now desiccated and crumbling. Many of these best minds now work directly in university research centers around the US (e.g. MIT) to advance the "frontiers of science". These frontiers of scientific discovery that are directed towards US Imperial hegemonic military applications. Many of these exceptional people are recruited to create esoteric financial instruments in Wall Street to advance the extraction of wealth from countries around the planet using the imperial tools of US Empire (e.g. Bretton Woods, IMF & Washington Consensus). Krauss' intellect doesn't allow him the politician's indulgence of hiding behind ignorance and/or incompetence; he can’t use the politician’s plea of “plausible deniability”. So is Krauss just another one of these intentionally ignorant academics that tends to exhibit selective intellectual integrity?
Well fuckin said. It’s nice to see someone else than me going off about how insane and destructive and brainwashed society has become due to US imperialism. The US corporate military empire has caused the worst extinction ever and I rarely hear anyone bring it up let alone all the roots connected to it.
That's because most people don't grasp the fact that the social relation of Capital breeds servitude for many to the few who own what the many produce.
@jazz biz the immense majority had no control over what they produced. They were just taking orders. In fact, that was the case all the way back to the time when the bourgeois who led the American political revolutionary war from Britain's absolutist rule wrote, "All men are created equal" even as Southern chattel slaves picked cotton for their owners to sell in the marketplace of commodities.
@jazz biz I've been advocating for the immense majority to establish social ownership and democratic control of the collective product of labour and natural resources for over 50 years. Not only that, but to distribute that wealth on the basis of need, not commodify it for sale. The ugly truth is that while most individuals would prefer such an arrangement, they also say that it's against human nature. All of this leads me to the conclusion that most people acquiesce to class rule because they are afraid of opposing the system and try their best to become winners in the rat race. In effect, the ruling ideas of our time are ever the ideas of the roosters and hens who control the pecking order, in our case, the power structure which emerges from the wage system where we trade what we produce for the price of our skills in the labour market. The global warming, which has put humanity on a tobaggan ride to ecological collapse, may force our fellow humans to abandon the ruling class, as they have done before during the various ecological crises brought about through unsustainable systems of production/consumption.
@jazz biz nihilism will get you nowhere--that's 'utopia', nowhere. Thanks for your honest views. Mine are that we, the bottom 90%, have to abolish the wage system ourselves out of our desire to free ourselves from the entangled webs of servitude you so eloquently outline. However, "The ugly truth is that while most individuals would prefer such an arrangement, they also say that it's against human nature. All of this leads me to the conclusion that most people acquiesce to class rule because they are afraid of opposing the system and try their best to become winners in the rat race. In effect, the ruling ideas of our time are ever the ideas of the roosters and hens who control the pecking order, in our case, the power structure which emerges from the wage system where we trade what we produce for the price of our skills in the labour market."
Lawrence was struggling to frame his questions properly. I think he did not do his home work properly. There was hardly anything for Chomsky to speak in this episode :-(
What the hell is Krauss attempting to do here? “I think I learned from you”. He learned everything from Noam and has no clue how to use it in an interview…
Dr Krauss, why are you so interested in the United States being the leader in research? Aren't you more interested in solving Nature's most difficult problems? Nationalism is all about egotism. Also, Dr Krauss is dominating the conversation here. I wanted to hear more of Dr Chomsky's views.
Because as an American (& as a logical minded world citizen from ANY nation), you have to be equally rooting for team America & team Humanity (they are SINE QUA NON. And I'm saying that even as a former runaway slave from the 1600s 1700s & 1800s) It is (historically) proven that America must continue to be the hegemony of the world... ... because no other nation can protect the world as a whole, like that of America. Just imagine Russia or China or Saudi Arabia or North Korea (et al) being the leader of the world. It'll be the catalyst to a global doomsday. America was the proverbial Michael Jordan of the Allied soldiers... ...or else Hitler may have had a chance. My soliloquy may sound ethnocentric, but it's nonetheless an ineluctable fact.
@@imgoing2stayonyourmind654 But you're not EQUALLY rooting for team America: you want America to be number one. You're saying that you want to appear powerful not humane. You try to conceal that by identifying America with Humanity but it's inhuman to dump napalm bombs on civilians in Vietnam and its inhuman to bomb civilians in Iraq during an unsolicited and misleading intervention. So I suggest your identification is flawed. I think that the belief that American foreign policy is the paragon of virtue is a delusion. As I said before, I understand that your interest in research is motivated by a desire for power and control (America as leader) rather than a deep interest in the secrets of Nature. They're not necessarily mutually exclusive but I think they are in this case.
@@billusher2265 The idea that America acts to secure freedom of speech is also a delusion. It's about power and influence (and in Iraq it was about oil and Bush Jr's resolve to revenge his father's earlier humiliation). The Vietnam war protests began in 1965. In 1967, 100,000 protestors gathered at Lincoln memorial. Did Lyndon B. Johnson announce to the world "take note that we welcome free speech here"? Not a bit. Instead it was an inconvenience. As for abuse of technology, the US has the greatest number of guns and the greatest number of gun-related deaths per 100,000 population (in high income countries, 2010). So I ask you: Which country is most likely to abuse the power to cause injury? I think you need to be more aware how much you've been indoctrinated.
@@billusher2265 I return to my point: Why does America need to be the leader in research? I suggest that anyone who advocates this has a craving for power. The idea that America represents the 'free' world is nonsense. It's a self-appointed office. This is quite apart from the fact that science has evolved through the work of minds from many diverse nations. It's not any single country that should take all the credit for any advance. Who cares that America allows public protests when the military marches into other countries and bombs innocent civilians, soley for regional influence but under the guise of liberation or self-defence? I say again, that I think you've been indoctrinated into the idea that America is the paragon of virtue. Try visiting other nations to see how they live ... most of them without guns, most of them without imposing their way of life on others ... and they still have free speech! One final question. This conversation only continues on my part if you stop hiding behind anonymity.
"Nationalism is all about egotism" what the h is your basis of that? its a description of focus. so given you think that, you must then believe that people who want full open borders are... wizards who can put equal amount of focus and prosperity onto a population that is twice the size? or would you admit that such a mindset would lead to less prosperity for the populants of the country and better prosperity for the immigrants?
Michael Malice and Yaron Brook would definitely question Chomsky’s advocacy for Marxist economists. What would Chomsky thoughts be on Nazist, adolfist, or fascist economists?
One has to depend on reason from the other. Democracy becomes an instrument for the dominance of a ruling class when the door to the subjective sense of emancipation is shut through manipulation by those who hold the reins of political power, most generally, the employing class.
@Stinky Piece of Cheese "your cult" yeah cuz you obviously know this youtube stranger's entire ideological belief system, based on them (correctly) pointing out the NEUTRAL FACT that academia and science ALWAYS have ideology and politics baked into them, regardless of whether they're the ideology you agree with or disagree with...
@Stanky Piece of Bluecheese "Since the right is not populated by the educated, where does your cult rise from?" says the side that 30% thinks the coof has a 10% mortality rate... as welel as scoring worse in every poll made on the subject of knowledge. terrible attempts at gaslighting
Honestly, the worst one in quite a while. Krauss seems to not know what it's like to be in a university without being on the top slots. If you've never noticed collegues being passed over credit or progression because they're minorities or women, you've either been willingfully blind or ignorantly blind. They might be "less bad" than a lot of other places, but they're definitely not good. They have strong self-selection mechanisms and enforce group uniformity.
It's all about money, that's the way it works. If I had money I would buy Chomsky a private jet as long as he would take me for a ride and shute the breeze once in a while.
France is racist, generally speaking. Yet that one nation does not define Europe... This point of view is totally unwarranted and wrong (from a distance). I live in Spain, Valencia, as a legal alien (Indian) and it's NOT AT ALL RACIST. Nor are most parts of the country and southern Europe in general. These folks could try, live outside their own rotten societies...Which is America in a general sense.
The 800 pound gorilla in the room. We All grow old…some better some worse. I’m a Baby Boomer one of those who has grown oldish. You can’t be twenty on sugar mountain…That’s why you live your life to its fullest each day, sometimes you blow it and other days exceed expectations. Thank You LK and NC…ageless.
The example that is repeated frequently to illustrate "political correctness" at universities is a professor who is fired for using the wrong pronoun when addressing a student. Universities should create an environment where students and faculty are free to explore and exchange ideas. But they are also institutions that ought to promote tolerance and respect for differences. This should extend to transgender students who ask to be addressed by a preferred pronoun. Scoffing at this ignores the medical and psychological conditions underlying their gender identity. Are not transgender students on campus, among students with congruent sex and gender identities, just another example of those ideas and differences that people argue should be explored, understood, and protected at universities? Should they not feel free to express who they are? The "cancel culture" critics, and they are otherwise correct in many instances, would have you believe that professors inadvertently referring to a student by a non-preferred pronoun are summarily fired. Professors get fired when they repeatedly refuse to refer to a student by the pronoun they choose and communicate to others. Whether this is for political, religious, or other reasons, the university has a right and an interest in enforcing its policy to protect minorities and treat them with respect. You would think this obvious on a university campus, rather than enabling disrespect and harassment, against the backdrop of discrimination, physical and psychological abuse, and persecution that is well-documented in society at large. Would it be acceptable for a professor to make up a nickname that a student finds demeaning, embarrassing, and results in ridicule by other students? That is called harassment. What is the cost to the professor, relative to the cost to the student, for enforcing vs ignoring the policy? Why should a professor be allowed to make an example of a minority student for personal reasons? Odd that the military has taken the lead on this, while the left criticizes university administrators for doing the right thing. I cannot understand the objection to a recognition of systemic institutional racism. It also is well-documented. Critical Race Theory has been politicized, but it advocates an awareness of a phenomenon that is undeniable, and reflects a commitment to better understanding it. To try to "cancel" this from having a place in the university marketplace of ideas is absurd. The threat to reaching a better understanding of racism and mitigating its spread and its effects, comes from the political right with their brand of "political correctness", or do we have to call it something else? Same is true with stem cell research. What the left must deal with in terms of university administrators caving to public pressure on PC issues, pales compared to what is in store if the alt-religious-right have their way. Look what Florida Gov. Desantis is requiring of universities in his state. Conservatives have long been hostile to higher education because statistics consistently show that students graduate more liberal politically than when they were admitted. Conservatives are extremely vocal about PC and cancel culture. They cynically exaggerate the extent of it and use it as a sign of the inevitable fall of civilization. No amount of compromise nor policy tweaking will keep them from attacking higher education. So the idea that liberal campus values should bend to pressure so as not to anger the right, makes little sense, especially when the conclusion of the discussion was that universities and other institutions need to stand their ground in the face of "public outcry". That concept should hold whether the public outcry comes from the left or the right. Finally, regarding the case of the psychology professor fired by Berea College in Kentucky, there is a complicated backstory to the incident and more details and drama than described here. The principals had a history involving an unrelated incident. Also, the real examples that were described in the survey and used to elicit responses, were not innocuous, unbiased observations of a hostile work environment. The objections were about the descriptions because, while not identifying faculty members by name, they provided enough detail that it was obvious from the context, which professors were implicated. And one female professor reported that, in her case, the description was factually incorrect and undermined her reputation and character. Also, the administrators reportedly told him to resubmit some of the scenarios that they felt needed some editing. For some reason, it never happened. The case is a mess to sort out and it went to court on multiple counts. I do not know whether there has been a final ruling. But a comprehensive examination of incidents like this is necessary before people add them to the anti-cancel culture arsenal. There are many cases where the dynamic involves a cry of "cancel culture" by someone wanting to take advantage of the outrage that is attached to it and take cover under its wing, while not necessarily fitting the concept. I do not mean to imply that this happened here. I do not know enough about it to pretend to understand all of the factors involved. But I do know it is more complicated than an open and shut case of the administration silencing this professor. The students, by the way, supported him. They either gave him an award from the student body or had planned to. I know another colleague was against it, but I do not know the outcome.
Lawrence - Noam Chomsky agreed to talk to you so can I suggest you prepare properly and ask him a series of sensible questions and let the great man answer them. He won't be around much longer. This interview is appalling - honestly. And BTW: Systemic racism is real - it's not a myth - and the politics of tenure in US institutions has been a long-standing issue in the US since Charles Beard and the Progressive historians back in the 1920s and 30s. If you were really paying attention to these issues and had prepared, you wouldn't have displayed a degree of ignorance and naivete in discussing them. As Noam says, how many Marxist economists have successful careers in US institutions and have won tenure over the last 50 years? Please learn how to let people talk by doing your homework before talking to them. Many US institutions have Boards of Trustees (Donors, Patrons, Philanthropists) who may prefer to have compliant academics who do NOT stumble into the public arena and make statements that go against the class interests of US elites.
": Systemic racism is real - it's not a myth " true. trillionsof dollars of university spots stolen from deserving wh and especially asian people and gifted to low competency bla people. "As Noam says, how many Marxist economists have successful careers in US institutions and have won tenure over the last 50 years?" indeed, theyre awful
"...the line that francis collins buys into because of the systemic racist mythology, i would say, to argue that is to, is to um, is to accept a reality which doesnt exist." Says the white man in a position of absolute privilege.
I really hate to be that guy, but Dr. Krauss, sometimes it is a bit difficult to follow your train of thought as you seem to bounce around at a mile a minute with a lot of stuttering and abandonment of some lines of inquiry and answers.
Had the same thought...he should get some sleep.He should also really understand that Chomsky does believe that there is systemic racism in the U.S Is Kraus ready to join the IDW ?
@@hotstixx I was wondering about that "systemic racism mythology" comment, and how little time Chomsky was being given to outline his own ideas on anything. Had to look up IDW. Found an academic viewpoint essay that proposed soft racism as sometimes being an element of IDW. I've run into that element myself in discussions, and to be sure I knew what I was talking about, had looked up the studies on hiring practices, renting, comparisons of unarmed Black deaths by police, arrest rates, conviction rates, and sentencing rates for identical crimes. While systemic racism clearly exists, it can also be used improperly to censor, cancel, or fire people under false pretenses. Is Krauss seeing only this, a McCarthyist frenzy of misdirected, reactive activism? Perhaps because of being himself caught up in the public adrenaline machinery of cancellation? Would love a better explanation of the "mythology" comment.
@@laceystinson He also said "critical race theory" with air quotes. This is standard the Jordan Peterson anti-left red scare line. They call it "postmodern neo-marxism" as a pejorative. It's a nonsense critique. Notice that Chomsky's examples are all libertarian left (he actually uses marxism as an example). They phrase questions to chomsky like it's a free speech issue, but it's not. They don't like what critical race theory (or feminism or critical social theory..) is publishing because it challenges racist, sexist, imperialist power that privileges them.
It's really hard to follow him for just that reason. I can feel Chomksy's brain trying furiously to tease out whatever core of thought is tumbling around in the torrent of Krauss's word splatter. Would I be any better? Dunno, because I don't have the name recognition to even get a chance. But whatever -- I'm always glad to hear Chomsky's ability to cut through the fog put into action.
@@laceystinson Agreed entirely. Just to add that Chomsky holds that the war on drugs is really a war on race. Of course we can discover data that reveals the truth but things are of course much slippier when they play with language,law and the whole world of the 'unofficial'.It is much like all those 'polished' arguments one gets from the right when they try to justify exploitation in the workplace,conveniently forgetting the whole history of the control of workers in time and space - From the usual brutal tactics ..to the more subtle -Taylorism,fordism,panopticism,aesthetics,debt etc.etc. But even this it seems is for nought as this new period we are in just doesnt give a shit about truth at all and authoritarianism takes newer smilier forms..hell they dont even give a shit about plausible deniability any more.Biden will paper over the cracks in typical liberal style but the seismic shifts going on underneath will not be contained by mere cosmetics. Onward to sunny uplands !
Listening to Krauss being interviewed is as mesmerizingly captivating as listening to him interview someone is stultifying. He really can be a dichotomy.
"As of June 2021, eight U.S. states have enacted laws banning the teaching of critical race theory, and nine others were in the process of doing so": en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_race_theory.
Krauss is whining about free speech when the shoe finally drops on the regressive academic establishment by popular pressure. When state power censors his political enemies: silence. It's clear what side he's on. So much for defending to the death my right to say it, liberals.
You are incorrectly addressing it as, it is located, and projected from the left. That is not a fact, observable, once it is looked, at all, of it's available layers. I say available, as some of the layer's, do not manifest their construct, until much much later, in the process. This is a technique, that it has been successfully applied, at an unstoppable pace, be it slow, or fast since the beginnings of revolution's against royal aristocracy. I came into its realisation, by a description made in the French media, of the "working class, left on the ideology, have now turned, to the far right, thus racism." That concept, or idea, is beyond comprehension. To say that, the ones, that have always united under, the people, are now the far right, the racists ones, the bigot's! There is no rotting fish that beats that result. What is coming from the left, under the disguise of the left, is the destruction of honesty. Honesty is what makes language, what makes it last, what makes it be noticed. It is the true original, organism, within human beings, having years, and years of the many, dedicated to it's existence. It is why, we read some, after hundreds, and thousands of years, and not others. I say! Coming from the left, under the disguise of the left, as it is a well known fact, that the right political spectrum, owns the copyright of the destruction of honesty, and as a preferred tool, is always at their disposal. Although at it's original conception, it is not neither left, or right, that began such game theory, but what has always ruled, is, was, and will continue to remain the source of it. Propaganda is a game, among others, the destruction of honesty, is always the true currency, of such games, that is sought after, above all things. Why? Because nothing can rule honesty, be it good, bad, wise, naive, violent or peaceful. It is how science, true science, operates, how universe works. Targets, scape goats, the other, reconciliation, and than, a copious unification, of body, spirit and mind, in that order, is the preferred, way, as I cannot in truth, say, it is the best way. G-d forbid it should ever come to fruition. A better way that, to destroy honesty. ( Note: Applicable to USA, but as a formula, to the whole world, depending on the connections, and the results, deriving from such connections. Connections here is used, in a scientific concept, not that of who you know, and that goes in the scientific meaning of connections.)
IQ needs to be brought up at some point. I grew up in LA in the 80s and 90s and it was generally fine in the 80s with burgeoning middle class but the 90s was the real beginning of all this crap!
@@hotstixx "Chomsky had a series of exchanges with Murray way back in which he debunked the whole nonsense." wow, the arbiter of reaality on all things lQ! nevermind the eternal pattern of asian people doing infinitely better on anything intellectual... bl people can be equally intelligent, AND have superior physical prowess, and bigger P*s, cause those are the areas that are allowed to be genetically different. which directly equates by basic math to bl people just being superior overall. hello, bl supre*st you!
Gonna double-tap this recommendation - Chomsky is not the only leftwing sociologist who is against the effects of WOKE brand identity politics. Vivek Chibber attacks this problem so precisely. It is wonderful. As well, take a look at the book, Racecraft.
I work as a staff member in academia and I’m scared to even say that I don’t think biological males should be competing with females in sports… it’s absolutely wild. As for Noam; he’s a legend, but I lost a lot respect for him when he seemingly went against everything he’s stood for his entire life with regards to his views on COVID vaccine mandates.
I appreciate Lefties speaking up about this, but MY GOD you're like 5 years late to the conversation at least, and you're still pushing this right wing boogieman. like, what right wing boogie man? where is it? Yall have won every battle for the past 80 years for better and for worst. Where the hell is this right wing boogie man?
What I've learned is that Noam Chomsky is unwilling to criticize the left. He should be equally disgusted by things like CRT and authoritarianism regardless of where it comes from, but he consistently is dismissive of transgressions by the left of which he takes only one breath to cover. Liberation theology to him is a noble movement, not a communist form of subversion. What really shook me out of my worship of him is his depiction of leftist movements as being benign while the right is always rotten to the core. Criticism for both sides is what really marks honest work, wish he was more than he is. Still respect him, but it's a bit old at this point because these points are consistently reinforced by his interviews wherever I look. When does the left go too far? It isn't a trivial matter. If there is a wrong way to do the right thing, there's a discussion to be had that, from what I have gathered from literally days worth of Chomsy speeches, you simply won't find.
Considering he made so much fame arguing with Foucault you'd think he'd have more to say about C(R)T, it's just impossible to take him seriously now. He's gone from reasonable leftist to full Marxist, no longer a voice for Academic-Freedom.
@@Douglas1102 I thought the same thing, drawing parallels between his argument with foucault, Rorty, and postmodernism as incomprehensible garbage to his silence now on the illiberal silencing on all voices regardless of sides unless it amplifies their cult ideology
It is a fact that Biden is more left leaning than any US president in recent history. It may not conform with ur little revolutionary feelings but it's a fact. Even if Biden was as bad as Obama, letting Trump rule for another 4 years would've still been a mistake. So ur "debunking" of the idea of voting for the lesser of two evils falls flat on both cases: the real world and ur fantasy world.
How can a capitalist war-monger, who has spent 30+ years aiding U.S. imperialism, be moved, to the LEFT... As if the left is any different from the right in America.
@@AudioPervert1 The left(tm) politicians ARE different from the right. Not different enough, and not in enough areas, but still different. The right denied global warming and COVID, pulled out of treaties, blocked unemployment relief, openly suppresses the vote, and the list goes on. Saying "no difference" is nonsense.
Fact: It is nearly impossible to organize against fascism while living under fascism. Trump and his supporters were (and still are) trying to build a *kind* of fascist society. Biden is certainly no great, progressive leader, but the Biden administration so far has allowed other more progressive elements to at least, you know-not be murdered by the right wing (remember the calls-AND PLANS-to assassinate AOC and other members of the squad, as well as Nancy Pelosi, etc? That was a real threat.) We don't try to 'move Biden to the left", we DEMAND-though political and social action-that change happen. A month of protest and one burning police station is worth ten million votes (kidding, not kidding...)
"Ask Chomsky how successful his idea to "move biden to the left" has been." wait, its not enough that hes locked down the world and payed people not to work for a cough that killed less people in 2020 than in any other normal fl year (15k total in UK, read the report)? its not enough that he wanted to spy on peoples private phone messages and actively censor "misin-ion"? you comm-ts drive a hard bargain
When Noam took the side of Kshama Sawant, probably the most hated Socialist in all of Seattle, I knew then that Noam likes to talk about things he doesn't really know about. I suppose people just enjoy talking about places and things they know very little about. Including Chomsky.
Last time I watched Chomsky on a podcast the host asked him a viewer question like "What do you think about such & such a statement by Sam Harris about Islam." Chomsky's response was "I think he's a racist so his statements aren't worth discussing."
we should label him a ped-ile without basis and call it even
Benjamin Disraeli said more than 150 years ago "A man who is not a liberal at 16 has no heart; a man who is not a conservative at 60 has no head". Seems that Noam refuses to turn 60! It might take him a few more years... BTW, in my opinion, would Noam have been president, he would turn out more like Lenin or Fidel Castro. Luckily enough, he never sought political office so we are safe for now!
It's so difficult to see your hero grow old. ❤
I know, right?
Bernie Sanders ?
Naom Chomsky looking more and more like Gandalf with every passing wave of the magic wand 😂👌💥
@Jeff Whitman I wasn’t tryna be intelligent ya f**kin bell end 😂😂😂👌
Noam : You shall not pass!
I just watched a video of Noam Chomsky from 2012 and ten years has aged him a lot more than I would have imagined but I think he just needs a haircut and a beard trim... but at age 92 not too bad, I guess he's still mentally as sharp as a pin.
he speaks more and more slowly with age
@@martinkunev9911 Don't we all.
70% Krauss talking
19.99% Chomsky
The rest 10.01% is also Krauss but interrupting
He quite clearly has a speech impediment, it’s not his fault
I was on university only for short period of time and i didn't like that experience... but these guys are for me the great example of how honest, open discussions should look like... for me what they are doing it's a simple exposure of the style of thinking and I think they're teaching like that more then on some very detailed classes about some very specific subjects... stay critical and tuned to the truth and You'll be ok...
Krauss makes it difficult to watch this.
Please let Noam speak more, most of the video is the host asking questions in the longest way possible.
Krauss as an interviewer talks to much, so a discussion as a whole got kind of frantic and chaotic. The clue is hidden. Burning Chomsky's books? That was an interesting part, which wasn't put over the table
Agree!
He doesn't talk too much, he just fails to get to the point, spends a lot of time searching for what he wants to say instead of saying it. He comes across as unprepared.
Theyre old friends, I believe they go back decades, this isnt an interview its a podcast discussion, both speakers are equal here.
Krauss is trying to hard. Makes him stutter and talk too much.
This is one segment from a larger conversation
Giving a loaded gun to your worst enemy and hoping he only shoots your other more immediate enemy on the ground. That's the analogy here. How about we oppose both, and don't give either a loaded gun?
You need to release more podcasts Dr Krauss. I love 15 minutes with Noam every week but we fanatics need more please.
And I was misinformed and lied to about mr Chomsky
..again forgive me if can Lawrence and mr. Chomsky...I'm truly sorry for my vial comments ...
I'd like to hear more Chomsky and less Krauss,
please...
Lawrence's share is correct.
Damn, he grew old. Makes him even more a hero.
More Noam, less Lawrence.
I love you Noam Chomsky ❤Thank You❣
Seems like Krauss is trying to put words in Chomsky’s mouth or continually tweak his statements to get Chomsky to agree with him. Make your statement, ask your question and let Chomsky respond.
Please ask Chomsky about Rational Communism, or Rational Democracy. The Government as an Internet Forum for Policy Proposals. Anyone can post such proposals (if not already posted), anyone can add argument in favor/against them (if not already written), and we can have a transparent scoring system to figure out which Policy Proposal is the best and by exactly how many points.
We can use the number of people advantaged by the policy, multiplied with the degree of advantage according to Maslow's pyramid of human needs, all minus the vice-versa - the negative score. Or any type of transparent system that's complex enough in order to be fair.
Direct Democracy is easily manipulated by the rich who own the media, and Representative Democracy has the same problem but its worse because it lack transparency (you don't know what the party really will do, or you might vote a party for policy A, but you have to swallow policy B - that you;re against). Lets evolve!
Leftism is the superior level of the brain, or the SuperEgo in psychology. While the lower part of the brain responsible with primitive sexual instincts is the base for right-wing. This leads to selfishnes, desire for competition, and competition leads to a pyramidal society with an alpha male on the top. (which is why religion has a male type of god, and why people have an universal submissive behavior in front of this type of god, which most animals do in front of the alpha male: bowing, crawling, kneeling, bringing offerings, etc.) Bees are Communists, because they never mate sexually, thus there's no competition, only collaboration. But our top brain level is even more communist than the bees, because it makes us identify with other people.
Communism is specific to the rational, conscious part of the brain. That's why we need the voting to be done by this rational, conscious part of our brains. Workers, people in their majority are not leftists, their instinct is to elect an alpha type of leader, a pyramidal structure. If you truly are leftists, you should think of a rational, transparent system for the people to own and control the Government and every department.
This is so funny, going in a big circle, always arriving at the same place. Oh what to do....?
Great Respect as usual for you Chomsky. 🥰
What Krauss doesn't appear to understand when he says, 03:32 "It was able to bring the best young people from around the world to its educational systems. Many of whom came here and produced the wealth and quality of life we have as a nation", the "quality of life" of its people isn't the reason the plutocracy and their academic institutions attempt to import the best minds from around the planet. Apart from maintaining the status quo, the plutocrats and their academic institution have little interest in the "quality of life" of the majority of the population. The Princeton study clearly shows only the top fraction of a percent are considered in any government policy and the rest are left to fend for themselves in a corrupt system.
Krauss is avoiding the reality that most of the best minds (e.g. Hand Bethe, Edward Teller, Leo Szilard, Enrico Fermi, Eugene Wigner . . . ) that "come to America" are used to advance US imperial hegemony. What motivation for the plutocrats do you think was behind Operation Paperclip? Operation Paperclip is a microcosm of the intent of US plutocrats to extract intellect and knowledge from around the planet to benefit their cause. These minds have been intentionally herded to give the plutocrats their empire that is now desiccated and crumbling. Many of these best minds now work directly in university research centers around the US (e.g. MIT) to advance the "frontiers of science". These frontiers of scientific discovery that are directed towards US Imperial hegemonic military applications. Many of these exceptional people are recruited to create esoteric financial instruments in Wall Street to advance the extraction of wealth from countries around the planet using the imperial tools of US Empire (e.g. Bretton Woods, IMF & Washington Consensus). Krauss' intellect doesn't allow him the politician's indulgence of hiding behind ignorance and/or incompetence; he can’t use the politician’s plea of “plausible deniability”. So is Krauss just another one of these intentionally ignorant academics that tends to exhibit selective intellectual integrity?
Well fuckin said. It’s nice to see someone else than me going off about how insane and destructive and brainwashed society has become due to US imperialism. The US corporate military empire has caused the worst extinction ever and I rarely hear anyone bring it up let alone all the roots connected to it.
That's because most people don't grasp the fact that the social relation of Capital breeds servitude for many to the few who own what the many produce.
@jazz biz the immense majority had no control over what they produced. They were just taking orders. In fact, that was the case all the way back to the time when the bourgeois who led the American political revolutionary war from Britain's absolutist rule wrote, "All men are created equal" even as Southern chattel slaves picked cotton for their owners to sell in the marketplace of commodities.
@jazz biz I've been advocating for the immense majority to establish social ownership and democratic control of the collective product of labour and natural resources for over 50 years. Not only that, but to distribute that wealth on the basis of need, not commodify it for sale. The ugly truth is that while most individuals would prefer such an arrangement, they also say that it's against human nature. All of this leads me to the conclusion that most people acquiesce to class rule because they are afraid of opposing the system and try their best to become winners in the rat race. In effect, the ruling ideas of our time are ever the ideas of the roosters and hens who control the pecking order, in our case, the power structure which emerges from the wage system where we trade what we produce for the price of our skills in the labour market. The global warming, which has put humanity on a tobaggan ride to ecological collapse, may force our fellow humans to abandon the ruling class, as they have done before during the various ecological crises brought about through unsustainable systems of production/consumption.
@jazz biz nihilism will get you nowhere--that's 'utopia', nowhere. Thanks for your honest views. Mine are that we, the bottom 90%, have to abolish the wage system ourselves out of our desire to free ourselves from the entangled webs of servitude you so eloquently outline. However, "The ugly truth is that while most individuals would prefer such an arrangement, they also say that it's against human nature. All of this leads me to the conclusion that most people acquiesce to class rule because they are afraid of opposing the system and try their best to become winners in the rat race. In effect, the ruling ideas of our time are ever the ideas of the roosters and hens who control the pecking order, in our case, the power structure which emerges from the wage system where we trade what we produce for the price of our skills in the labour market."
Lawrence was struggling to frame his questions properly. I think he did not do his home work properly. There was hardly anything for Chomsky to speak in this episode :-(
he is one of those people that says nothing using a lot of words and only describing the world and then what do you think of that ?
You two get it but does your audience? Speak to them, this is more important than anything else going on.
Great video. Chomsky and Krauss on the same level about censorship while coming from different academic backgrounds.
I wish they would refer to the specific censorship they're referring to.
"The Left is censoring academia"
Chomsky: "How many Marxist economists are there?"
Never thought about that...
We need more marxists to make universities great again.
@@jedadruled984 hey... you almost got me there
@@lacanian1500 Bro, commies are not bad, no, they like to present themselves as decent and smart.
I don't get it
@@soposh5673 Chomsky thinks Marxian economists are unwelcome in the academia and can't get employment there for ideological reasons.
Bullshit: Coming through!
Chomsky: None... Shall... PASS!!!
Except for all the times he was asked about the federal reserve
In this video, Krauss represents the side of bullshit.
I thought the man on the left was Gandalf. But it was Noam Chomsky.
What the hell is Krauss attempting to do here? “I think I learned from you”. He learned everything from Noam and has no clue how to use it in an interview…
What did he do wrong, how would you have conducted the interview?
Great episode
Dr Krauss, why are you so interested in the United States being the leader in research? Aren't you more interested in solving Nature's most difficult problems? Nationalism is all about egotism. Also, Dr Krauss is dominating the conversation here. I wanted to hear more of Dr Chomsky's views.
Because as an American (& as a logical minded world citizen from ANY nation), you have to be equally rooting for team America & team Humanity (they are SINE QUA NON. And I'm saying that even as a former runaway slave from the 1600s 1700s & 1800s)
It is (historically) proven that America must continue to be the hegemony of the world...
... because no other nation can protect the world as a whole, like that of America.
Just imagine Russia or China or Saudi Arabia or North Korea (et al) being the leader of the world.
It'll be the catalyst to a global doomsday.
America was the proverbial Michael Jordan of the Allied soldiers...
...or else Hitler may have had a chance.
My soliloquy may sound ethnocentric, but it's nonetheless an ineluctable fact.
@@imgoing2stayonyourmind654 But you're not EQUALLY rooting for team America: you want America to be number one. You're saying that you want to appear powerful not humane. You try to conceal that by identifying America with Humanity but it's inhuman to dump napalm bombs on civilians in Vietnam and its inhuman to bomb civilians in Iraq during an unsolicited and misleading intervention. So I suggest your identification is flawed. I think that the belief that American foreign policy is the paragon of virtue is a delusion. As I said before, I understand that your interest in research is motivated by a desire for power and control (America as leader) rather than a deep interest in the secrets of Nature. They're not necessarily mutually exclusive but I think they are in this case.
@@billusher2265 The idea that America acts to secure freedom of speech is also a delusion. It's about power and influence (and in Iraq it was about oil and Bush Jr's resolve to revenge his father's earlier humiliation). The Vietnam war protests began in 1965. In 1967, 100,000 protestors gathered at Lincoln memorial. Did Lyndon B. Johnson announce to the world "take note that we welcome free speech here"? Not a bit. Instead it was an inconvenience. As for abuse of technology, the US has the greatest number of guns and the greatest number of gun-related deaths per 100,000 population (in high income countries, 2010). So I ask you: Which country is most likely to abuse the power to cause injury? I think you need to be more aware how much you've been indoctrinated.
@@billusher2265 I return to my point: Why does America need to be the leader in research? I suggest that anyone who advocates this has a craving for power. The idea that America represents the 'free' world is nonsense. It's a self-appointed office. This is quite apart from the fact that science has evolved through the work of minds from many diverse nations. It's not any single country that should take all the credit for any advance. Who cares that America allows public protests when the military marches into other countries and bombs innocent civilians, soley for regional influence but under the guise of liberation or self-defence? I say again, that I think you've been indoctrinated into the idea that America is the paragon of virtue. Try visiting other nations to see how they live ... most of them without guns, most of them without imposing their way of life on others ... and they still have free speech! One final question. This conversation only continues on my part if you stop hiding behind anonymity.
"Nationalism is all about egotism"
what the h is your basis of that?
its a description of focus.
so given you think that, you must then believe that people who want full open borders are... wizards who can put equal amount of focus and prosperity onto a population that is twice the size?
or would you admit that such a mindset would lead to less prosperity for the populants of the country and better prosperity for the immigrants?
Michael Malice and Yaron Brook would definitely question Chomsky’s advocacy for Marxist economists. What would Chomsky thoughts be on Nazist, adolfist, or fascist economists?
Let Chomsky respond.
This reality thing is so unpleasant, I now understand drug abuse to help forget....
Yep.
Yoda Chomsky dropping the will of the force till the end xx
Noam Chomsky, live via satellite from a men’s shelter bathroom
Chomsky is the oracle
His looks is the answer to "what if we mix Gandalf and Dumbledore with hint of Moses?"
There he is :)
"Don't subordinate yourself to it". QED
How to change another's mind, without manipulation?
One has to depend on reason from the other. Democracy becomes an instrument for the dominance of a ruling class when the door to the subjective sense of emancipation is shut through manipulation by those who hold the reins of political power, most generally, the employing class.
Academia and science have been overrun by ideological zealots.
Academia and science have *ALWAYS been overrun by ideological zealots
@Stinky Piece of Cheese "your cult" yeah cuz you obviously know this youtube stranger's entire ideological belief system, based on them (correctly) pointing out the NEUTRAL FACT that academia and science ALWAYS have ideology and politics baked into them, regardless of whether they're the ideology you agree with or disagree with...
@Stinky Piece of Cheese Next I bet you're going to claim I'm part of antifa or something. LOL
@Stanky Piece of Bluecheese "Since the right is not populated by the educated, where does your cult rise from?"
says the side that 30% thinks the coof has a 10% mortality rate... as welel as scoring worse in every poll made on the subject of knowledge.
terrible attempts at gaslighting
I can't tell if Lawrence hesitates with what he's saying a lot or if he actually has a stutter!
Honestly, the worst one in quite a while. Krauss seems to not know what it's like to be in a university without being on the top slots. If you've never noticed collegues being passed over credit or progression because they're minorities or women, you've either been willingfully blind or ignorantly blind. They might be "less bad" than a lot of other places, but they're definitely not good. They have strong self-selection mechanisms and enforce group uniformity.
Lawrence, shut up and let this man speak.
It's all about money, that's the way it works. If I had money I would buy Chomsky a private jet as long as he would take me for a ride and shute the breeze once in a while.
Hi Noam, it's Noam 🌈☘💞☘🌈
Too funny to watch with a straight face. Chomsky is Legendary
A true intellectual.
I need to apologize to mr. Chomsky and Laurence Krauss for my comments they were all wrong....I'm sorry...
They fired or refused tenure for Dr. Cornel West too.
France is racist, generally speaking. Yet that one nation does not define Europe... This point of view is totally unwarranted and wrong (from a distance). I live in Spain, Valencia, as a legal alien (Indian) and it's NOT AT ALL RACIST. Nor are most parts of the country and southern Europe in general. These folks could try, live outside their own rotten societies...Which is America in a general sense.
The 800 pound gorilla in the room. We All grow old…some better some worse. I’m a Baby Boomer one of those who has grown oldish. You can’t be twenty on sugar mountain…That’s why you live your life to its fullest each day, sometimes you blow it and other days exceed expectations. Thank You LK and NC…ageless.
Chomsky is a living legend, because he still lives up to his own legacy.
When it comes to censorship religions are majority of the problem. Trying to change the outlook of religions looking good.
What?
The example that is repeated frequently to illustrate "political correctness" at universities is a professor who is fired for using the wrong pronoun when addressing a student. Universities should create an environment where students and faculty are free to explore and exchange ideas. But they are also institutions that ought to promote tolerance and respect for differences. This should extend to transgender students who ask to be addressed by a preferred pronoun. Scoffing at this ignores the medical and psychological conditions underlying their gender identity. Are not transgender students on campus, among students with congruent sex and gender identities, just another example of those ideas and differences that people argue should be explored, understood, and protected at universities? Should they not feel free to express who they are? The "cancel culture" critics, and they are otherwise correct in many instances, would have you believe that professors inadvertently referring to a student by a non-preferred pronoun are summarily fired. Professors get fired when they repeatedly refuse to refer to a student by the pronoun they choose and communicate to others. Whether this is for political, religious, or other reasons, the university has a right and an interest in enforcing its policy to protect minorities and treat them with respect. You would think this obvious on a university campus, rather than enabling disrespect and harassment, against the backdrop of discrimination, physical and psychological abuse, and persecution that is well-documented in society at large. Would it be acceptable for a professor to make up a nickname that a student finds demeaning, embarrassing, and results in ridicule by other students? That is called harassment. What is the cost to the professor, relative to the cost to the student, for enforcing vs ignoring the policy? Why should a professor be allowed to make an example of a minority student for personal reasons? Odd that the military has taken the lead on this, while the left criticizes university administrators for doing the right thing.
I cannot understand the objection to a recognition of systemic institutional racism. It also is well-documented. Critical Race Theory has been politicized, but it advocates an awareness of a phenomenon that is undeniable, and reflects a commitment to better understanding it. To try to "cancel" this from having a place in the university marketplace of ideas is absurd. The threat to reaching a better understanding of racism and mitigating its spread and its effects, comes from the political right with their brand of "political correctness", or do we have to call it something else? Same is true with stem cell research. What the left must deal with in terms of university administrators caving to public pressure on PC issues, pales compared to what is in store if the alt-religious-right have their way. Look what Florida Gov. Desantis is requiring of universities in his state. Conservatives have long been hostile to higher education because statistics consistently show that students graduate more liberal politically than when they were admitted. Conservatives are extremely vocal about PC and cancel culture. They cynically exaggerate the extent of it and use it as a sign of the inevitable fall of civilization. No amount of compromise nor policy tweaking will keep them from attacking higher education. So the idea that liberal campus values should bend to pressure so as not to anger the right, makes little sense, especially when the conclusion of the discussion was that universities and other institutions need to stand their ground in the face of "public outcry". That concept should hold whether the public outcry comes from the left or the right.
Finally, regarding the case of the psychology professor fired by Berea College in Kentucky, there is a complicated backstory to the incident and more details and drama than described here. The principals had a history involving an unrelated incident. Also, the real examples that were described in the survey and used to elicit responses, were not innocuous, unbiased observations of a hostile work environment. The objections were about the descriptions because, while not identifying faculty members by name, they provided enough detail that it was obvious from the context, which professors were implicated. And one female professor reported that, in her case, the description was factually incorrect and undermined her reputation and character. Also, the administrators reportedly told him to resubmit some of the scenarios that they felt needed some editing. For some reason, it never happened. The case is a mess to sort out and it went to court on multiple counts. I do not know whether there has been a final ruling. But a comprehensive examination of incidents like this is necessary before people add them to the anti-cancel culture arsenal. There are many cases where the dynamic involves a cry of "cancel culture" by someone wanting to take advantage of the outrage that is attached to it and take cover under its wing, while not necessarily fitting the concept. I do not mean to imply that this happened here. I do not know enough about it to pretend to understand all of the factors involved. But I do know it is more complicated than an open and shut case of the administration silencing this professor. The students, by the way, supported him. They either gave him an award from the student body or had planned to. I know another colleague was against it, but I do not know the outcome.
Lawrence - Noam Chomsky agreed to talk to you so can I suggest you prepare properly and ask him a series of sensible questions and let the great man answer them. He won't be around much longer. This interview is appalling - honestly. And BTW: Systemic racism is real - it's not a myth - and the politics of tenure in US institutions has been a long-standing issue in the US since Charles Beard and the Progressive historians back in the 1920s and 30s. If you were really paying attention to these issues and had prepared, you wouldn't have displayed a degree of ignorance and naivete in discussing them. As Noam says, how many Marxist economists have successful careers in US institutions and have won tenure over the last 50 years? Please learn how to let people talk by doing your homework before talking to them. Many US institutions have Boards of Trustees (Donors, Patrons, Philanthropists) who may prefer to have compliant academics who do NOT stumble into the public arena and make statements that go against the class interests of US elites.
": Systemic racism is real - it's not a myth "
true. trillionsof dollars of university spots stolen from deserving wh and especially asian people and gifted to low competency bla people.
"As Noam says, how many Marxist economists have successful careers in US institutions and have won tenure over the last 50 years?"
indeed, theyre awful
Our greatest living Global Elder.
Julian Assange has aged a lot...
"...the line that francis collins buys into because of the systemic racist mythology, i would say, to argue that is to, is to um, is to accept a reality which doesnt exist." Says the white man in a position of absolute privilege.
I really hate to be that guy, but Dr. Krauss, sometimes it is a bit difficult to follow your train of thought as you seem to bounce around at a mile a minute with a lot of stuttering and abandonment of some lines of inquiry and answers.
Had the same thought...he should get some sleep.He should also really understand that Chomsky does believe that there is systemic racism in the U.S Is Kraus ready to join the IDW ?
@@hotstixx I was wondering about that "systemic racism mythology" comment, and how little time Chomsky was being given to outline his own ideas on anything. Had to look up IDW. Found an academic viewpoint essay that proposed soft racism as sometimes being an element of IDW. I've run into that element myself in discussions, and to be sure I knew what I was talking about, had looked up the studies on hiring practices, renting, comparisons of unarmed Black deaths by police, arrest rates, conviction rates, and sentencing rates for identical crimes. While systemic racism clearly exists, it can also be used improperly to censor, cancel, or fire people under false pretenses. Is Krauss seeing only this, a McCarthyist frenzy of misdirected, reactive activism? Perhaps because of being himself caught up in the public adrenaline machinery of cancellation? Would love a better explanation of the "mythology" comment.
@@laceystinson He also said "critical race theory" with air quotes. This is standard the Jordan Peterson anti-left red scare line. They call it "postmodern neo-marxism" as a pejorative. It's a nonsense critique. Notice that Chomsky's examples are all libertarian left (he actually uses marxism as an example). They phrase questions to chomsky like it's a free speech issue, but it's not. They don't like what critical race theory (or feminism or critical social theory..) is publishing because it challenges racist, sexist, imperialist power that privileges them.
It's really hard to follow him for just that reason. I can feel Chomksy's brain trying furiously to tease out whatever core of thought is tumbling around in the torrent of Krauss's word splatter. Would I be any better? Dunno, because I don't have the name recognition to even get a chance. But whatever -- I'm always glad to hear Chomsky's ability to cut through the fog put into action.
@@laceystinson
Agreed entirely.
Just to add that Chomsky holds that the war on drugs is really a war on race.
Of course we can discover data that reveals the truth but things are of course much slippier when they play with language,law and the whole world of the 'unofficial'.It is much like all those 'polished' arguments one gets from the right when they try to justify exploitation in the workplace,conveniently forgetting the whole history of the control of workers in time and space - From the usual brutal tactics ..to the more subtle -Taylorism,fordism,panopticism,aesthetics,debt etc.etc. But even this it seems is for nought as this new period we are in just doesnt give a shit about truth at all and authoritarianism takes newer smilier forms..hell they dont even give a shit about plausible deniability any more.Biden will paper over the cracks in typical liberal style but the seismic shifts going on underneath will not be contained by mere cosmetics.
Onward to sunny uplands !
Is there a bird in the background? Whatever it is, it's making this very hard to listen to.
It's the Chomsky's bilingual parrot.
Listening to Krauss being interviewed is as mesmerizingly captivating as listening to him interview someone is stultifying. He really can be a dichotomy.
It’s too bad he couldn’t have Ayn Rand on
"As of June 2021, eight U.S. states have enacted laws banning the teaching of critical race theory, and nine others were in the process of doing so": en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_race_theory.
Krauss is whining about free speech when the shoe finally drops on the regressive academic establishment by popular pressure. When state power censors his political enemies: silence. It's clear what side he's on. So much for defending to the death my right to say it, liberals.
@@spencerharmon4669 twitter.com/zei_squirrel/status/1406014177383157761
Lawrence, please shut up. Let the wise old man speak.
Yo sir Noam wassssupp
is that a mythological creature 😱😱😱😱😱🥳🥳🥳
If you're going to interview people, allow them to speak, please, without constant interruption.
Noam needs a vacation
Yeah, blowing smoke rings in Hobbiton.
@@davidhoracek6758 he might as well take an eagle flight to the Undying Lands for the best smokes.
You are incorrectly addressing it as, it is located, and projected from the left. That is not a fact, observable, once it is looked, at all, of it's available layers. I say available, as some of the layer's, do not manifest their construct, until much much later, in the process. This is a technique, that it has been successfully applied, at an unstoppable pace, be it slow, or fast since the beginnings of revolution's against royal aristocracy. I came into its realisation, by a description made in the French media, of the "working class, left on the ideology, have now turned, to the far right, thus racism." That concept, or idea, is beyond comprehension. To say that, the ones, that have always united under, the people, are now the far right, the racists ones, the bigot's! There is no rotting fish that beats that result. What is coming from the left, under the disguise of the left, is the destruction of honesty. Honesty is what makes language, what makes it last, what makes it be noticed. It is the true original, organism, within human beings, having years, and years of the many, dedicated to it's existence. It is why, we read some, after hundreds, and thousands of years, and not others. I say! Coming from the left, under the disguise of the left, as it is a well known fact, that the right political spectrum, owns the copyright of the destruction of honesty, and as a preferred tool, is always at their disposal. Although at it's original conception, it is not neither left, or right, that began such game theory, but what has always ruled, is, was, and will continue to remain the source of it. Propaganda is a game, among others, the destruction of honesty, is always the true currency, of such games, that is sought after, above all things. Why? Because nothing can rule honesty, be it good, bad, wise, naive, violent or peaceful. It is how science, true science, operates, how universe works. Targets, scape goats, the other, reconciliation, and than, a copious unification, of body, spirit and mind, in that order, is the preferred, way, as I cannot in truth, say, it is the best way. G-d forbid it should ever come to fruition. A better way that, to destroy honesty. ( Note: Applicable to USA, but as a formula, to the whole world, depending on the connections, and the results, deriving from such connections. Connections here is used, in a scientific concept, not that of who you know, and that goes in the scientific meaning of connections.)
Norm looks like Sadham Huesin prior to his caprure.
This interview reminds me of Jeffrey Epstein for some reason.
The white wizard 🧙♂️
Does Noam own a comb?
Fuck no
Combing is so overrated. Ask Einstein
Less talking more interviewing.
Can one say that religion is a form of manufacturing consent?
It is more accurate to say that taking the book, ' Manufacturing Consent ', too seriously is itself tantamount to religious fanatiscism! smh
@@mck1972 touché
IQ needs to be brought up at some point. I grew up in LA in the 80s and 90s and it was generally fine in the 80s with burgeoning middle class but the 90s was the real beginning of all this crap!
Chomsky had a series of exchanges with Murray way back in which he debunked the whole nonsense.
@@hotstixx "Chomsky had a series of exchanges with Murray way back in which he debunked the whole nonsense."
wow, the arbiter of reaality on all things lQ!
nevermind the eternal pattern of asian people doing infinitely better on anything intellectual... bl people can be equally intelligent, AND have superior physical prowess, and bigger P*s, cause those are the areas that are allowed to be genetically different.
which directly equates by basic math to bl people just being superior overall. hello, bl supre*st you!
5:43 Systemic Racist *“Mythology”*
Are you serious Lawrence Krauss?
are you, proponent of the theft of trillions of dolalrs of university spots stolen from asians and gifted to unqualified bl people?
you are utter scm
They are being to self survival...
Chomsky is always on point.
Lawrence, if you want to do a monologue why invite Chomsky?
Krauss has derailed so many conversations with this tiresome spiel
rambling krauss🥴
Gonna double-tap this recommendation - Chomsky is not the only leftwing sociologist who is against the effects of WOKE brand identity politics.
Vivek Chibber attacks this problem so precisely. It is wonderful.
As well, take a look at the book, Racecraft.
I watched a great arc of the United States of America…… I am watching its death arc
Largely promulgated by the Corporate donor class who's running the show.
Is Chomsky in a nursing home?
No. He lives with his wife
@@chribjslaha in Arizona
Was Chomsky on Epstein’s plane with Minsky
Asking the real questions here!! Was krauss?
I work as a staff member in academia and I’m scared to even say that I don’t think biological males should be competing with females in sports… it’s absolutely wild. As for Noam; he’s a legend, but I lost a lot respect for him when he seemingly went against everything he’s stood for his entire life with regards to his views on COVID vaccine mandates.
K a just such a pain 2 watch … impossible to shut up
I appreciate Lefties speaking up about this, but MY GOD you're like 5 years late to the conversation at least, and you're still pushing this right wing boogieman. like, what right wing boogie man? where is it? Yall have won every battle for the past 80 years for better and for worst. Where the hell is this right wing boogie man?
Sorry, forgot social media isn't real. Peace
Gnomen est oamen!
It cannot be unseen that Noam is turning into a Gnome.
Just add a pointy red hat.
Дворяне
What I've learned is that Noam Chomsky is unwilling to criticize the left. He should be equally disgusted by things like CRT and authoritarianism regardless of where it comes from, but he consistently is dismissive of transgressions by the left of which he takes only one breath to cover. Liberation theology to him is a noble movement, not a communist form of subversion. What really shook me out of my worship of him is his depiction of leftist movements as being benign while the right is always rotten to the core. Criticism for both sides is what really marks honest work, wish he was more than he is. Still respect him, but it's a bit old at this point because these points are consistently reinforced by his interviews wherever I look. When does the left go too far? It isn't a trivial matter. If there is a wrong way to do the right thing, there's a discussion to be had that, from what I have gathered from literally days worth of Chomsy speeches, you simply won't find.
Considering he made so much fame arguing with Foucault you'd think he'd have more to say about C(R)T, it's just impossible to take him seriously now. He's gone from reasonable leftist to full Marxist, no longer a voice for Academic-Freedom.
@@Douglas1102 I thought the same thing, drawing parallels between his argument with foucault, Rorty, and postmodernism as incomprehensible garbage to his silence now on the illiberal silencing on all voices regardless of sides unless it amplifies their cult ideology
Yes you are deluded 😜
Ask Chomsky how successful his idea to "move biden to the left" has been.
It is a fact that Biden is more left leaning than any US president in recent history. It may not conform with ur little revolutionary feelings but it's a fact. Even if Biden was as bad as Obama, letting Trump rule for another 4 years would've still been a mistake. So ur "debunking" of the idea of voting for the lesser of two evils falls flat on both cases: the real world and ur fantasy world.
How can a capitalist war-monger, who has spent 30+ years aiding U.S. imperialism, be moved, to the LEFT... As if the left is any different from the right in America.
@@AudioPervert1 The left(tm) politicians ARE different from the right. Not different enough, and not in enough areas, but still different. The right denied global warming and COVID, pulled out of treaties, blocked unemployment relief, openly suppresses the vote, and the list goes on. Saying "no difference" is nonsense.
Fact: It is nearly impossible to organize against fascism while living under fascism. Trump and his supporters were (and still are) trying to build a *kind* of fascist society. Biden is certainly no great, progressive leader, but the Biden administration so far has allowed other more progressive elements to at least, you know-not be murdered by the right wing (remember the calls-AND PLANS-to assassinate AOC and other members of the squad, as well as Nancy Pelosi, etc? That was a real threat.) We don't try to 'move Biden to the left", we DEMAND-though political and social action-that change happen. A month of protest and one burning police station is worth ten million votes (kidding, not kidding...)
"Ask Chomsky how successful his idea to "move biden to the left" has been."
wait, its not enough that hes locked down the world and payed people not to work for a cough that killed less people in 2020 than in any other normal fl year (15k total in UK, read the report)?
its not enough that he wanted to spy on peoples private phone messages and actively censor "misin-ion"?
you comm-ts drive a hard bargain
Noam, says so, wataboutthis on the right, typical.
When Noam took the side of Kshama Sawant, probably the most hated Socialist in all of Seattle, I knew then that Noam likes to talk about things he doesn't really know about. I suppose people just enjoy talking about places and things they know very little about. Including Chomsky.
Quantum nonsense. Яшика и бабнина